Search

Background: Dolutegravir is now recommended for second-line anti-retroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries. We compared outcomes with dolutegravir (DTG) versus the previous lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) regimen in South Africa., Methods: We used routinely collected, de-identified data from 59 South African clinics. We included people living with HIV aged ≥ 15 years with virologic failure (two consecutive viral loads ≥1000 copies/mL) on first-line tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based ART and switched to second-line ART. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare outcomes of 12-month retention-in-care and viral suppression (<50 copies/ml) after switching to second-line regimens of zidovudine (AZT), emtricitabine/lamivudine (XTC), DTG and TDF/XTC/DTG and AZT/XTC/LPV/r., Findings: Of 1214 participants, 729 (60.0%) were female, median age was 36 years (interquartile range 30 to 42), 689 (56.8%) were switched to AZT/XTC/LPV/r, 217 (17.9%) to AZT/XTC/DTG and 308 (25.4%) to TDF/XTC/DTG. Retention-in-care was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (85.7%, adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.27; adjusted risk difference (aRD) 10.89%, 95%CI 2.01 to 19.78) but not different with TDF/XTC/DTG (76.9%, aRR 1.01, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.10; aRD 1.04%, 95%CI -5.03 to 7.12) compared to AZT/XTC/LPV/r (75.2%). Retention-in-care with TDF/XTC/DTG was not statistically significantly different from AZT/XTC/DTG (aRR 0.89, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.01; aRD -9.85%, 95%CI -20.33 to 0.63). Of 799 participants who were retained-in-care with a 12-month viral load, viral suppression was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (59.3%, aRR 1.25, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.47; aRD 11.57%, 95%CI 2.37 to 20.76) and TDF/XTC/DTG (60.7%, aRR 1.30, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.48; aRD 14.16%, 95%CI 7.14 to 21.18) than with the AZT/XTC/LPV/r regimen (46.7%)., Interpretation: DTG-based second-line regimens were associated with similar or better retention-in-care and better viral suppression than the LPV/r-based regimen. TDF/XTC/DTG had similar viral suppression compared to AZT/XTC/DTG., Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Africa Oxford Initiative., Competing Interests: RJL is a recipient of research awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01AI152772 and R01AI167699. These awards are for projects relating to the monitoring of HIV drug resistance (focused on dolutegravir resistance) and evaluation of management strategies for people with virological failure on dolutegravir-containing regimens. All other authors declare no competing interests.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which emerged in December 2019, has infected millions worldwide and caused many deaths. Due to its high mortality rate, several studies assessed the effectiveness of different drugs against COVID-19, mainly in reducing the hospitalization rate among the elderly and compromised patients. Lopinavir-ritonavir combination and remdesivir were among the medications used to treat COVID-19. Due to considerable differences in the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of the two treatments, this study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between COVID-19 patients treated with antiretrovirals (lopinavir-ritonavir) and remdesivir. A total of 33 patients on lopinavir-ritonavir and 35 on remdesivir were selected for this study. A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted based on demographic characteristics, hospital stay, laboratory parameters of C-reactive protein (CRP) and plasma blood oxygen saturation (SPO 2 ), clinical treatment, and a clinical outcome assessment extracted from hospital archive data. Both treatments improved patient outcomes, yet there was a significant difference between lopinavir-ritonavir and remdesivir groups in platelet count, CRP, SPO 2 , and monocyte results, with remdesivir showing better clinical outcomes. No significant difference was reported in white blood cells, lymphopenia, and lactate dehydrogenase between the two treatments. It is still necessary to conduct further research to determine how effective the two treatments are in treating severe COVID-19 cases due to the limited number of available studies and the inconsistency in research methods and measurements., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital mortality in patients treated with favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir for COVID-19., Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between March 10 and May 10, 2020, from patients' records admitted to ICU due to COVID-19. Laboratory data, clinical characteristics, ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay were compared in patients treated with favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir., Results: A total of 100 patients' data were investigated. Favipiravir was used as the treatment for 85% of patients, with the rest treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Clinical and laboratory data of both antiviral treatment groups were similar. Length of hospital stay was 16 (9-24) days with favipiravir and 8.5 (5-12.5) days with lopinavir-ritonavir (p=0.002). Length of ICU stay for favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir groups were 8 (5-15) days and 4 (3-9) days, respectively (p=0.011). ICU mortality was 65.9% for the favipiravir and 80% for lopinavir-ritonavir (p=0.002). Hospital mortality for favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir was 67.1% and 80%, respectively (p=0.001)., Conclusion: The mortality in patients treated with favipiravir was less than patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Favipiravir needs more attention and trials for its effect to be confirmed., Competing Interests: None declared., (© Copyright 2022 by The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected over 145 million infected people and 3 million deaths worldwide. There has been limited data to recommend either for or against use of antiviral regimens in mild COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between mild COVID-19 patients receiving antiviral drugs and those without., Method: Thai patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at field hospital affiliated to Thammasat University Hospital, Thailand were evaluated between January 1, 2020 and April 13, 2021. Patients' data, clinical presentation, past medical history, laboratory results, and treatment outcomes were extensively reviewed., Results: Five hundred patients with positive tests were included in the study. The mean age was 35.9 years; 46% males. There were 225 (45%), 207 (41.4%), 44 (8.8%), 18 (3.6%), 6 (1.2%) patients with asymptomatic, mild, moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19, respectively. Of 207 mild COVID-19 patients, 9 (4.3%) received lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir, 17 (8.2%) received favipiravir, while 175 (84.5%) had only supportive care. Mild COVID-19 patients receiving antiviral treatment had longer median length of hospital stay [13 days (IQR 11-14) vs. 10 days (IQR 8-12), p < 0.001] than patients having only supportive treatment. Antiviral drug use was significantly associated with longer hospital stay (>10 days) in mild COVID-19 patients (OR 5.52; 95%CI 2.12-14.40, p < 0.001). Adverse drug reactions such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, and hepatitis were also demonstrated in our COVID-19 patients with antiviral treatments. Majority of patients (97.6%) recovered without any complications and were discharged home. Two deaths were caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome from severe COVID-19 pneumonia., Conclusion: Antiviral treatment could not provide superior clinical outcomes to supportive care in mild COVID-19 patients. Mild COVID-19 patients receiving antiviral medication had longer length of hospital stay than those without. Standard supportive care and regular monitoring of disease progression might be keys for successful management of mild COVID-19., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease -19 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has gradually spread worldwide, becoming a major public health event. This situation requires designing a novel antiviral agent against the SARS-CoV-2; however, this is time-consuming and the use of repurposed medicines may be promising. One such medicine is favipiravir, primarily introduced as an anti-influenza agent in east world. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in comparison with lopinavir-ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this randomized clinical trial, 62 patients were recruited. These patients had bilateral pulmonary infiltration with peripheral oxygen saturation lower than 93%. The median time from symptoms onset to intervention initiation was seven days. Favipiravir was not available in the Iranian pharmaceutical market, and it was decided to formulate it at the research laboratory of School of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. The patients received favipiravir tablet at a dose of 1600 mg orally twice a day for day one and then 600 mg orally twice a day for days 2 to 6. In the second group, the patients received lopinavir-ritonavir combination tablet at a dose of 200/50 mg twice a day for seven days. Fever, cough, and dyspnea were improved significantly in favipiravir group in comparison with lopinavir-ritonavir group on days four and five. Mortality rate and ICU stay in both groups were similar, and there was no significant difference in this regard ( P = 0.463 and P = 0.286, respectively). Chest X-ray improvement also was not significantly different between the two groups. Adverse drug reactions occurred in both groups, and impaired liver enzymes were the most frequent adverse effect. In conclusion, early administration of oral favipiravir may reduce the duration of clinical signs and symptoms in patients with COVID-19 and hospitalization period. The mortality rate also should be investigated in future clinical trials.

Background Liver injury has been documented independently in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Objective to investigate the drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir among the patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted a disproportionality analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between 2020Q1 and 2021Q1 to evaluate the association between lopinavir-ritonavir and risk of drug-induced liver injury (or severe drug-induced liver injury) and calculated their reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 3,425 cases of drug-induced liver injury were reported in 19,782 patients with COVID-19. The ROR for drug-induced liver injury was 2.99 (2.59-3.46), 3.16 (2.68-3.73), and 5.39 (4.63-6.26) when comparing lopinavir-ritonavir with all other drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only, and remdesivir, respectively. For severe drug-induced liver injury, RORs for lopinavir-ritonavir provided evidence of an association compared with all other drugs (3.98; 3.15-5.05), compared with hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine only (5.33; 4.09-6.94), and compared with remdesivir (3.85; 3.03-4.89). Conclusions In the FAERS, we observed a disproportional signal for drug-induced liver injury associated with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable., Results: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively)., Conclusion: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background/aims: Recent data indicate the presence of liver enzyme abnormalities in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the clinical features and treatment outcomes of COVID-19 patients with abnormal liver enzymes., Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of 874 COVID-19 patients admitted to five tertiary hospitals from February 20 to April 14, 2020. Data on clinical features, laboratory parameters, medications, and treatment outcomes were collected until April 30, 2020, and compared between patients with normal and abnormal aminotransferases., Results: Abnormal aminotransferase levels were observed in 362 patients (41.1%), of which 94 out of 130 (72.3%) and 268 out of 744 (36.0%) belonged to the severe and non-severe COVID- 19 categories, respectively. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for male patients, patients with a higher body mass index, patients with severe COVID-19 status, and patients with lower platelet counts were 1.500 (1.029 to 2.184, p=0.035), 1.097 (1.012 to 1.189, p=0.024), 2.377 (1.458 to 3.875, p=0.001), and 0.995 (0.993 to 0.998, p>0.001), respectively, indicating an independent association of these variables with elevated aminotransferase levels. Lopinavir/ ritonavir and antibiotic use increased the odds ratio of abnormal aminotransferase levels after admission (1.832 and 2.646, respectively, both p<0.05). The median time to release from quarantine was longer (22 days vs 26 days, p=0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (13.0% vs 2.9%, p<0.001) in patients with abnormal aminotransferase levels., Conclusions: Abnormal aminotransferase levels are common in COVID-19 patients and are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Multivariate analysis of patients with normal aminotransferase levels on admission showed that the use of lopinavir/ritonavir and antibiotics was associated with abnormal aminotransferase levels; thus, careful monitoring is needed.

Lopinavir-ritonavir combination is being used for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A low dose of ritonavir is added to other protease inhibitors to take advantage of potent inhibition of cytochrome (CYP) P450 3A4, thereby significantly increasing the plasma concentration of coadministered lopinavir. Ritonavir also inhibits CYP2D6 and induces CYP2B6, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, and CYP1A2. This potent, time-dependent interference of major hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes by ritonavir leads to several clinically important drug-drug interactions. A number of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure may have SARS-CoV-2 infection simultaneously. Lopinavir-ritonavir is added to their prescription of multiple cardiac medications leading to potential drug-drug interactions. Many cardiology, pulmonology, and intensivist physicians have never been exposed to clinical scenarios requiring co-prescription of cardiac and antiviral therapies. Therefore, it is essential to enumerate these drug-drug interactions, to avoid any serious drug toxicity, to consider alternate and safer drugs, and to ensure better patient care.

Background: In the absence of SARS-CoV-2 specific antiviral treatments, various repurposed pharmaceutical approaches are under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19. Antiviral drugs considered for this condition include atazanavir, remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and favipiravir. Whilst the combination of lopinavir and ritonavir has been previously linked to prolongation of the QT c interval on the ECG and risk of torsades de pointes arrhythmia, less is known in this regard about atazanavir, remdesivir, and favipiravir. Unwanted abnormalities of drug-induced QT c prolongation by diverse drugs are commonly mediated by a single cardiac anti-target, the hERG potassium channel. This computational modeling study was undertaken in order to explore the ability of these five drugs to interact with known determinants of drug binding to the hERG channel pore. Methods: Atazanavir, remdesivir, ritonavir, lopinavir and favipiravir were docked to in silico models of the pore domain of hERG, derived from cryo-EM structures of hERG and the closely related EAG channel. Results: Atazanavir was readily accommodated in the open hERG channel pore in proximity to the S6 Y652 and F656 residues, consistent with published experimental data implicating these aromatic residues in atazanavir binding to the channel. Lopinavir, ritonavir, and remdesivir were also accommodated in the open channel, making contacts in a model-dependent fashion with S6 aromatic residues and with residues at the base of the selectivity filter/pore helix. The ability of remdesivir (at 30 μM) to inhibit the channel was confirmed using patch-clamp recording. None of these four drugs could be accommodated in the closed channel structure. Favipiravir, a much smaller molecule, was able to fit within the closed channel and could adopt multiple binding poses in the open channel, but with few simultaneous interactions with key binding residues. Only favipiravir and remdesivir showed the potential to interact with lateral pockets below the selectivity filter of the channel. Conclusions: All the antiviral drugs studied here can, in principle, interact with components of the hERG potassium channel canonical binding site, but are likely to differ in their ability to access lateral binding pockets. Favipiravir's small size and relatively paucity of simultaneous interactions may confer reduced hERG liability compared to the other drugs. Experimental structure-function studies are now warranted to validate these observations., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Al-Moubarak, Sharifi and Hancox.)

Purpose: A number of research articles has been published evaluating safety and efficacy of drugs against COVID-19. This study was undertaken to collate and review the information regarding common proposed anti- viral drugs for easy reference., Methods: The literature was search was done using terms like severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV or COVID-19 in combination with drugs or treatment or pharmaco-therapy using PubMed and google scholar to identify relevant articles., Results: Despite showing good early results, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir has not shown clinical benefit in randomized controlled trials. However lopinavir in combination with other drugs specially interferon is being investigated. Remdesivir has shown positive effect in terms of clinical improvement and continued to being investigated alone or in combination with other drugs. Favipiravir has shown mixed results and more data from adequately powered study is needed to prove its efficacy., Conclusions: Many drugs which showed positive effect in initial studies could not replicate the same benefit in large randomized controlled trials. There is need to evaluate efficacy and safety of drugs based on high quality evidence before allowing it to be used in general population., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.)

Background/aims: The efficacies of lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare the virological and clinical responses to lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine at a single center in Korea from February 17 to March 31, 2020. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine concurrently and those treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine for less than 7 days were excluded. Time to negative conversion of viral RNA, time to clinical improvement, and safety outcomes were assessed after 6 weeks of follow-up., Results: Of 65 patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 25 men [38.5%]), 31 were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and 34 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The median duration of symptoms before treatment was 7 days and 26 patients (40%) required oxygen support at baseline. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir had a significantly shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA than those treated with hydroxychloroquine (median, 21 days vs. 28 days). Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 4.21) and younger age (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.87) was associated with negative conversion of viral RNA. There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between lopinavir-ritonavir- and hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (median, 18 days vs. 21 days). Lymphopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were more frequent in lopinavir-ritonavir-treated patients compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients., Conclusion: Lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with more rapid viral clearance than hydroxychloroquine in mild to moderate COVID-19, despite comparable clinical responses. These findings should be confirmed in randomized, controlled trials.

Aim: The inconsistent effects of lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) on COVID-19 seem to be caused by the therapeutic window. In the present study, we aim to present the effects of early LPV/r treatment on patients with severe COVID-19., Methods: The demographics, characteristics, treatments, SARS-CoV-2 test results and outcomes of 19 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with LPV/r within 12 days of onset of symptoms were retrospectively assessed., Results: Within 3 days of admission, three (15.79%) patients received noninvasive ventilation, and 16 (84.21%) patients received high-flow oxygen support. The median duration between the onset of symptoms and initiating LPV/r therapy was 9 (range 2-12) days. The median course of LPV/r treatment was 11 (range 7-17) days. One of the 19 patients (5.26%) died. Of the 18 patients discharged, the median hospital stay was 17 (range 11-45) days. At day 6 after LPV/r therapy was initiated, 68.42% of patients were virologically cured, increasing to 84.22% at day 12., Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 who were treated with LPV/r within 12 days of the onset of symptoms, clinical improvement was observed in 18/19 patients (94.74%). Randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to further evaluate this strategy., (© Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited by suboptimal efficacy., Methods: From January 30, 2020 to March 23, 2020, we conducted a non-randomised controlled trial, in which all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were assigned to three groups non-randomly and given supportive treatments: Group A, Lopinavir-Ritonavir; Group B, Huashi Baidu Formula (a Chinese medicineformula made by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences to treat COVID-19, which is now in the clinical trial period) and Lopinavir-Ritonavir; and Group C, Huashi Baidu Formula. The use of antibiotics, antiviruses, and corticosteroids was permitted in Group A and B. Traditional Chinese medicine injections were permitted in Group C. The primary outcomes were clinical remission time (interval from admission to the first time the patient tested negatively for novel coronavirus or an obvious improvement was observed from chest CT) and clinical remission rate (number of patients whose clinical time was within 16 days/total number of patients)., Results: A total of 60 adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled at sites in Wuhan, China, and the sample size of each group was 20. In Groups A, B and C, the clinical remission rates were 95.0%%(19/20), 100.0%%(20/20) and 100.0%%(20/20), respectively. Compared with Groups A and B, the clinical remission time of Group C was significantly shorter (5.9 days vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.05; 5.9 days vs. 9.7 days, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among Groups A, B, and C in terms of the time taken to be released from quarantine. The clinical biochemical indicators and safety indexes showed no significant differences among the three groups., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Lopinavir-Ritonavir has some efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, and the Huashi Baidu Formula might enhance this effect to an extent. In addition, superiority was displayed in the treatment of COVID-19 through a combination of the Huashi Baidu Formula and traditional Chinese medicine injection. In future, well-designed prospective double-blinded randomised control trials are required to confirm our findings., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

In December of 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus flared in Wuhan, the capital city of the Hubei Province, China. The pathogen has been identified as a novel enveloped RNA beta-coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a disease characterized by severe atypical pneumonia known as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Typical symptoms of this disease include cough, fever, malaise, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia, and, in severe cases, pneumonia. 1 The high-risk group of COVID-19 patients includes people over the age of 60 years as well as people with existing cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus. Epidemiological investigations have suggested that the outbreak was associated with a live animal market in Wuhan. Within the first few months of the outbreak, cases were growing exponentially all over the world. The unabated spread of this deadly and highly infectious virus is a health emergency for all nations in the world and has led to the World Health Organization (WHO) declaring a pandemic on March 11, 2020. In this report, we consolidate and review the available clinically and preclinically relevant results emanating from in vitro animal models and clinical studies of drugs approved for emergency use as a treatment for COVID-19, including remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir-ritonavir combinations. These compounds have been frequently touted as top candidates to treat COVID-19, but recent clinical reports suggest mixed outcomes on their efficacies within the current clinical protocol frameworks.

Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 vary considerably between patients. Little was known about the clinical course and optimal management of immunosuppressed patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. We report a kidney transplant recipient with COVID-19 who presented with pneumonitis and acute kidney injury (AKI). She improved after reduction of immunosuppressive treatment and had two consecutive negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. Her respiratory tract samples turned positive again afterwards, and she was treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. She had satisfactory virological and clinical response after a prolonged disease course. This case illustrates the risk of relapse or persisting shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in immunosuppressed patients, the important role of viral load monitoring in management, the challenges in balancing the risks of COVID-19 progression and transplant rejection, and the pharmacokinetic interaction between immunosuppressive and antiviral medications., (© 2020 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.)

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has resulted in the development of various therapeutics to treat and prevent major complications related to the virus; pregnant patients are vulnerable to acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 because of frequent contact with the healthcare setting. Despite the publication of a plethora of case series and randomized control trials of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 therapeutics, few have addressed treatment in the pregnant population. To date, there has been no published review of therapeutic options in the treatment of pregnant patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Here, we provide a review of available treatments for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, various trials with inclusion and exclusion of the pregnant patients, and potential side effects of each treatment in the pregnant patient., (© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Covid-19 infection caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-COV-2 continues to be a major global health challenge. Till date, no drug has been approved for the treatment of this infection. A number of medications have been proposed and there are ongoing clinical trials around the world to find a suitable treatment. A recent randomised control trial compared lopinavir/ritonavir with standard care among 199 patients with severe Covid-19 infection and concluded that there was no significant reduction in mortality rate with lopinavir/ritonavir. However, there are a few important lessons which may be learnt from the study apart from the statistical reduction in mortality rate. There was a numerical reduction in mortality rate, less intensive care unit stay and less complications in the lopinavir-ritonavir group. This article points out some of those important lessons with some suggestions for future clinical trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: On June 30, 2020, the WHO reported over 10 millions of COVID-19 cases worldwide with over half a million deaths. In severe cases the disease progresses into an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), which in turn depends on an overproduction of cytokines (IL-6, TNFα, IL-12, IL-8, CCL-2 and IL1) that causes alveolar and vascular lung damage. Clearly, it is essential to find an immunological treatment that controls the "cytokine storm". In the meantime, however, it is essential to have effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs available immediately., Pharmacologic Therapy for Covid-19: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine have been widely adopted worldwide for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. However, the choice of this treatment was based on low quality of evidence, i.e. retrospective, non-randomized controlled studies. Recently, four large Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been performed in record time delivering reliable data: (1) the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RCT included 60 hospitals participating all over the world and showed the efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the recovery time in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia; (2) three large RCTs already completed, for hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone and Lopinavir and Ritonavir respectively. These trials were done under the umbrella of the 'Recovery' project, headed by the University of Oxford. The project includes 176 participating hospitals in the UK and was set up to verify the efficacy of some of the treatments used for COVID-19. These three 'Recovery' RCTs concluded definitely: (a) that treatment with hydroxychloroquine provides no benefits in patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (b) that treatment with dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in COVID-19 patients that were mechanically ventilated, and by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen only; (c) that the combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir is not effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients., Conclusions: The results of these four large RCTs have provided sound indications to doctors for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and prompted the correction of many institutional provisions and guidelines on COVID-19 treatments (i.e. FDA, NIH, UK Health Service, etc.). Even though a definitive treatment for COVID-19 has not yet been found, large RCTs stand as the Gold Standards for COVID-19 therapy and offer a solid scientific base on which to base treatment decisions., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to inflammatory cytokine release, which can downregulate the expression of metabolizing enzymes. This cascade affects drug concentrations in the plasma. We investigated the association between lopinavir (LPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plasma concentrations and the levels of the acute-phase inflammation marker C-reactive protein (CRP). LPV plasma concentrations in 92 patients hospitalized at our institution were prospectively collected. Lopinavir-ritonavir was administered every 12 hours, 800/200 mg on day 1 and 400/100 mg on day 2 until day 5 or 7. HCQ was given at 800 mg, followed by 400 mg after 6, 24, and 48 h. Hematological, liver, kidney, and inflammation laboratory values were analyzed on the day of drug level determination. The median age of study participants was 59 (range, 24 to 85) years, and 71% were male. The median durations from symptom onset to hospitalization and treatment initiation were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 10) and 8 days (IQR, 5 to 10), respectively. The median LPV trough concentration on day 3 of treatment was 26.5 μg/ml (IQR, 18.9 to 31.5). LPV plasma concentrations positively correlated with CRP values ( r  = 0.37, P  < 0.001) and were significantly lower when tocilizumab was preadministered. No correlation was found between HCQ concentrations and CRP values. High LPV plasma concentrations were observed in COVID-19 patients. The ratio of calculated unbound drug fraction to published SARS-CoV-2 50% effective concentrations (EC 50 ) indicated insufficient LPV concentrations in the lung. CRP values significantly correlated with LPV but not HCQ plasma concentrations, implying inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) metabolism by inflammation., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.)

Background: COVID-19 infection is the most serious global public health crisis of the century. With no approved treatments against it, investigational treatments are being used despite limited safety data. Besides being at higher risk of complications of COVID-19 infection, patients with underlying cardiovascular disease are more likely to develop cardiac-related side effects of treatment. We present a case of sinus arrest with junctional escape related to lopinavir-ritonavir., Case Summary: A 67-year-old man, with underlying stable ischaemic heart disease, acquired COVID-19 infection. He had a prolonged duration of fever and cough. He subsequently developed acute respiratory distress and required intensive care unit (ICU) care. Given his severe infection, he was started on lopinavir-ritonavir. Hydroxychloroquine was not used as he had a prolonged QTc interval. During observation in the ICU, the patient developed recurrent episodes of sinus arrest with junctional escape. Initial concerns were of myocarditis, but he had no ST-segment changes on ECG, with mild elevations of highly sensitive troponin I and a normal transthoracic echocardiogram. A multidisciplinary team discussion involving the intensivist, infectious disease physicians, and cardiologist; the decision was made to stop treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir. Within 48 h, the bradyarrhythmia resolved. The patient did not require transvenous and permanent pacemaker insertion., Conclusion: Current efficacy and safety evidence of lopinavir-ritonavir as a treatment in COVID-19 patients is limited. Although uncommonly reported, those with underlying cardiovascular disease are at increased risk of bradyarrhythmia-related adverse effects of lopinavir-ritonavir. When initiating investigational therapies, especially in patients with cardiovascular conditions, adequate counselling and close monitoring are required., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global struggle to cope with the sheer numbers of infected persons, many of whom require intensive care support or eventually succumb to the illness. The outbreak is managed by a combination of disease containment via public health measures and supportive care for those who are affected. To date, there is no specific anti-COVID-19 treatment. However, the urgency to identify treatments that could turn the tide has led to the emergence of several investigational drugs as potential candidates to improve outcome, especially in the severe to critically ill. While many of these adjunctive drugs are being investigated in clinical trials, professional bodies have attempted to clarify the setting where the use of these drugs may be considered as off-label or compassionate use. This review summarizes the clinical evidence of investigational adjunctive treatments used in COVID-19 patients as well as the recommendations of their use from guidelines issued by international and national organizations in healthcare.

COVID-19 has grown into a global pandemic that has strained healthcare throughout the world. There is a sense of urgency in finding a cure for this deadly virus. In this study, we reviewed the empiric options used in common practice for COVID-19, based on the literature available online, with an emphasis on human experiences with these treatments on severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-COV-1) and other viruses. Convalescent blood products are the most promising potential treatment for use in COVID-19. The use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), remdesivir, and tocilizumab are some of the other promising potential therapies; however, they are yet to be tested in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The use of lopinavir-ritonavir did not prove beneficial in a large RCT. The use of corticosteroids should be avoided in COVID-19 pneumonia unless used for other indications, based on the suggestion of harm in patients with SARS-COV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) infection. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: We would like to raise awareness about the toxicities related to the added excipients present in the oral solution of Liponavir/ritonavir in particular alcohol and propylene glycol., Case Presentation: In this case report, we describe an 18 month-old child with a newly diagnosed HIV infection on antiretroviral therapy (ART). She developed shortly after starting the ART unsteady gait and imbalance., Conclusions: The excipient-excipient interaction in Lopinavir/ritonavir may contribute to major toxicities not only in premature neonates and infants; but also in older children specifically from Asian ethnicity., Competing Interests: None., (© 2019 The Author(s).)

Background: We previously demonstrated the noninferiority of switching to efavirenz (EFV) versus remaining on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) for virologic control in children infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and exposed to nevirapine (NVP) for prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Here we assess outcomes up to 4 years post-randomization., Methods: From 2010-2013, 298 NVP-exposed HIV-infected children ≥3 years of age were randomized to switch to EFV or remain on LPV/r in Johannesburg, South Africa (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01146873). After trial completion, participants were invited to enroll into observational follow-up. We compared HIV RNA levels, CD4 counts and percentages, lipids, and growth across groups through four years post-randomization., Results: HIV RNA levels 51-1000 copies/mL were less frequently observed in the EFV group than the LPV/r group (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.88, P = .004), as was HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL (OR 0.52 95% CI: 0.28-0.98, P = .04). The probability of confirmed HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL by 48 months was 0.07 and 0.12 in the EFV and LPV/r groups, respectively (P = .21). Children randomized to EFV had a reduced risk of elevated total cholesterol (OR 0.45 95% CI: 0.27-0.75, P = .002) and a reduced risk of abnormal triglycerides (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.62, P < .001)., Conclusions: Our results indicate that the benefits of switching virologically suppressed NVP-exposed HIV-infected children ≥3 years of age from LPV/r to EFV are sustained long-term. This approach has several advantages, including improved palatability, reduced metabolic toxicity, simplified cotreatment for tuberculosis, and preservation of second line options., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01146873., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Objective: Because we previously observed a significant 41% reduction in gemfibrozil exposure after 2 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir administration, we sought to determine the influence of lopinavir-ritonavir and ritonavir alone on the pharmacokinetics of fenofibric acid, an alternative to gemfibrozil for the treatment of elevated triglyceride levels., Design: Open-label, single-sequence pharmacokinetic study., Setting: Clinical Research Center at the National Institutes of Health., Subjects: Thirteen healthy adult volunteers., Intervention: Subjects received a single oral dose of fenofibrate 145 mg during three study phases: before ritonavir administration, after 2 weeks of administration of ritonavir 100 mg twice/day, and after 2 weeks of administration of lopinavir 400 mg-ritonavir 100 mg twice/day., Measurements and Main Results: Serial blood samples were collected over 120 hours for determination of fenofibric acid concentrations. Fenofibric acid pharmacokinetic parameter values were compared before and after concomitant ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir administration. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for fenofibric acid area under the plasma concentration-time curve were 0.89 (0.77-1.01) after 14 days of ritonavir alone compared with baseline (p>0.05) and 0.87 (0.69-1.05) after 14 days of lopinavir-ritonavir compared with baseline (p>0.05). Study drugs were generally well tolerated; all adverse events were mild or moderate, transient, and resolved without intervention., Conclusion: In contrast to a significant interaction between gemfibrozil and lopinavir-ritonavir, neither lopinavir-ritonavir nor ritonavir alone altered the pharmacokinetics of fenofibric acid in healthy volunteers. These data suggest that fenofibrate remains an important option in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients receiving common ritonavir-boosted therapy., (© 2016 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Study Objective: Panax ginseng has been shown in preclinical studies to modulate cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the metabolism of HIV protease inhibitors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the influence of P. ginseng on the pharmacokinetics of the HIV protease inhibitor combination lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV-r) in healthy volunteers., Design: Single-sequence, open-label, single-center pharmacokinetic investigation., Setting: Government health care facility., Subjects: Twelve healthy human volunteers., Measurements and Main Results: Twelve healthy volunteers received LPV-r (400-100 mg) twice/day for 29.5 days. On day 15 of LPV-r administration, serial blood samples were collected over 12 hours for determination of lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations. On study day 16, subjects began taking P. ginseng 500 mg twice/day, which they continued for 2 weeks in combination with LPV-r. On day 30 of LPV-r administration, serial blood samples were again collected over 12 hours for determination of lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations. Lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameter values were determined using noncompartmental methods, and preadministration and postadministration ginseng values were compared using a Student t test, where p<0.05 was accepted as statistically significant., Conclusion: Neither lopinavir nor ritonavir steady-state pharmacokinetics were altered by 2 weeks of P. ginseng administration to healthy human volunteers. Thus, a clinically significant interaction between P. ginseng and LPV-r is unlikely to occur in HIV-infected patients who choose to take these agents concurrently. It is also unlikely that P. ginseng will interact with other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor combinations, although confirmatory data are necessary., (Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)